Re: Proposed XMPP Extension: New MUC

Stephen Paul Weber <[email protected]> Mon, 11 May 2026 10:14:36 -0500

Newsgroups	gmane.network.jabber.standards-jig
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

>> I agree that finished specs as submitted and accepted by the XSF should be
>> covered by the IPR.
>
>OK, so you're not accepting any ProtoXEP unless it is "finished"? As in,
>what, Stable quality or Final?
>
>I'd like to understand what it'll take to get something published.

In general my guiding principle is to avoid things we've seen in the past 
like MIX, COIN, JinglePub, Inbox, XEP-0284, etc where the spec is published 
(and in some cases lots of work goes into the spec or multiple other specs 
end up notionally depending on it) but it never actually goes anywhere.  
Especially in this case I hope we can agree that a repeat of the MIX process 
is not likely to get us to a better (for the ecosystem) result.

So what does "finished" mean? Does it mean ready for Final? Certainly not.  
But I'd hope it means that the primary design considerations and latent 
ambiguities have been squeezed out and that there is some reason to believe 
that adoption by (some non-trivial part of) the ecosystem is going to 
happen.

I know my opinion is not universally held by coucil, who sometimes says 
outrageous-to-me things like "numbers are cheap" and so of course I do allow 
my self to be swayed by the rest and I'm not going to dig in to 
single-handedly block things everyone else likes, and have voted +0 on 
several specs I was unsure about in the past based on pressure from others.

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)